The gas industry has responded to the recent ACCR v Santos Ltd judgment with a call to ‘crack down’ on organisations who seek climate-related corporate accountability in court, describing it as ‘misusing’ the court system.
This week, the Federal Court of Australia published its reasons for judgment in the case of ACCR v Santos Ltd. All allegations against the oil and gas producer were dismissed.
Australian Energy Producers CEO Samantha McCulloch said the court’s findings underscored the need for increased transparency around how activist groups are funded and the impact of their lawfare on Australia’s economic and energy security interests.
Related article: Court dismisses greenwashing case against gas giant Santos
“This outcome is welcome and reinforces the need for far greater transparency and accountability around the funding and coordination of activist litigation,” McCulloch said.
“There must be stronger disclosure of who is funding these organisations and the interests driving these legal campaigns.”
The court ordered ACCR to pay Santos’ costs, rejecting the claims that Santos had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to its net zero roadmap, use of the term “clean energy” and future hydrogen ambitions.
The court recognised that net zero roadmaps are, by their nature, forward-looking and subject to technological progress, market development and policy settings, and that Santos had a “clear and credible plan” to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 26-30% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040.
“When groups pursue high-profile legal action designed to influence public debate and investment confidence, transparency is essential,” McCulloch said.
“If activist organisations expect companies to meet the highest standards of disclosure and accountability, they should also be held to the same standard.”
Climate Integrity experts have responded to Australian Energy Producers’ call for a crack down, saying public interest litigation plays a critical role in enhancing accountability and is critical to a healthy, functioning democracy.
Related article: Emails show Woodside lobbying over gas project conditions
Centre for Public Integrity chair the Hon. Anthony Whealy KC says, “It is valuable to have the courts for a litmus test for what is reasonable. However, courts at first instance are often simply the start of a substantial legal process. They are fallible and their decisions are often overturned on appeal. It is not beyond speculation to suggest that the full court of the federal court may take quite a different view and come to a different conclusion.
“The gas industry lobby would say that, wouldn’t they? They would brand this court action as dangerous, when in fact challenges like this are the very essence of democracy. This type of litigation should be encouraged, not discouraged.
“This is democracy in action.”
